Another stereotype that’s also kind of incorrect: they’re old. Tim Duncan’s old. Manu Ginobili’s old. Tony Parker’s old-ish. But the dirty little secret about the Spurs is that they have some serious youth in their ranks too. Kawhi Leonard is 21. Danny Green is 25. Gary Neal is 28. Tiago Splitter is 28. Cory Joseph is 21. Nando De Colo is 25.

And here’s the funny thing about all those guys: Gregg Popovich has absolutely no problem playing any of them. And thereby, the Spurs develop those young players on the fly, which in turn is why I think a lot of people think of the team as old. Because you’re used to seeing Green and Leonard and Splitter and Neal. They seem just as veteran as anyone else on the roster.

Coaches are playing “correct” Grays over “still learning” Valanciunases all over the league. It satisfies a coach’s sense of order and control. Every coach wants their team to play the right way — which is not so different from following coach’s orders. Without that, what’s the point of having a coach?

Meanwhile, the guy who plays the “wrong” way often helps his team more, thanks to the many advantages of youth.

It’s a dilemma that trips up many NBA head men. But not Gregg Popovich.

The story is that the Spurs’ front office keeps feeding Popovich NBA-ready role players, and by the time his team’s in the Western Conference finals, he can confidently trot out Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green, Tiago Splitter, Gary Neal, Cory Joseph and the like, who are all both young enough to be in their athletic primes and schooled and experienced enough to do things the right way.

Nice. Decisive, even. Lucky.

[…]

But when it comes to the fine art of turning prospects into producers, Popovich’s aggressive youth-friendly approach is the standard. Popovich has missed with some young players. But he has also hit the bull’s eye more than once, and it made all the difference.

The Thunder organization has built their infrastructure in a manner that’s attempting to mimic the Spurs, specifically a small market team centered on core values and principles like sustainable success, a strong developmental system and a discernible, almost tangible culture. It’s still unknown whether or not the Thunder will enjoy the same kind of success the Spurs have, because I don’t know if you know this, winning in the NBA is hard. It takes great luck as much as it takes great management and great play. The Thunder were dealt a heap of the bad kind this postseason and by extension, the Spurs got some of the very good kind in that Russell Westbrook was out. It happens.

But after reading Henry’s piece, it really struck me that there’s a disconnect between the Thunder and Spurs when it comes to young players. At least there was this season. It’s not that the Thunder aren’t trying to develop their youth, it’s just that they’re going about it somewhat of a different way.

The best example is these numbers: 1) 23 games played, 147 total minutes and 2) 24 games, 347 minutes.

Can you figure out the meaning there? Number one is Jeremy Lamb’s 2012-13 season, number two is Derek Fisher’s.

I was one of many that were outspoken about Fisher’s playing time during the regular season and for me, it had a whole lot less to do with what Fisher was actually bringing to the floor and more to do with the fact of what he was keeping off it. The idea of playing Fisher over Lamb, outside of inexplicably treating Fisher like he was a shooting guard somehow, completely flew in the face of the Thunder’s approach of long-term development over short-term gain. Not only did Fisher get 12-15 minutes a night over Lamb, but he cut into the minutes of Reggie Jackson and even DeAndre Liggins. Why would the Thunder want to play a 38-year-old with no future with the franchise over a 20-year-old that’s supposed to be a future big piece? Unless they have no plans for Lamb (possible, I suppose), what sense did that make, especially for the Thunder?

Obviously, maybe the team didn’t feel Lamb was prepared for those moments. He’s in a unique situation for a lottery pick in that he’s on a 60-win team and one contending for a title. Expectations in OKC are different, and the same thing will be in place for whoever the Thunder take with the No. 12 pick.

But that’s never stopped Popovich and the Spurs. Routinely, the Spurs sit their key guys and let younger players play. It’s mostly to give the old guys a rest as they manage an 82-game schedule, but it’s as much about making sure the Splitters and Josephs and Greens get some reps too. The Thunder are OBVIOUSLY in a much different place in that even Durant and Westbrook are still young players that are growing, but is it really that necessary they play 45 minutes in a December game against the Wizards?

Now, Lamb and Jones (and Jackson, Liggins and Daniel Orton) spent their fair share of time getting plenty of minutes in Tulsa with the 66ers. A lot of people grew frustrated with that, but it’s a lot better for them to be playing SOMEWHERE instead of sniffing Gatorade fumes on the end of the bench every night. Lamb had a wildly successful and encouraging D-League campaign, routinely dropping upwards of 30 points a game. The tools are obviously there. But it’s a different game in the D-League, and nothing can simulate real life NBA action. Something of which Lamb only got twice this season, in terms actual meaningful rotation minutes. Once against the Pistons where he looked woefully lost, and then again against the Hawks a few weeks later where he splashed a couple 3s, grabbed a few rebounds in five minutes and kind of looked… good.

But then he didn’t play again outside of garbage time until the final game of the season where he played 41 minutes in a meaningless game.

So what gives? Why aren’t the Thunder following San Antonio’s lead and playing the young guys during the season?

Early on, the Thunder DID develop players live. For one, because they had to. There really wasn’t anyone else on the roster to play. But two, and the best reason, is because they could. The team was in a transitional phase of clearing the floor and starting over with a new, young core. It was understood that this was going to be a painful growth process and that the team would likely suck as these kids found their way. So there was no pressure to play savvy vets over Durant, Westbrook, Harden or even Ibaka.

Half the time, coaches are coaching for their job, and that’s why many have the inclination to go with veteran players. Even if there’s an understanding the team is building young players, fanbases and media grumble over 20-62 seasons. So coaches lean towards trying to win the game in front of them rather than taking the long view. When Scott Brooks took over for P.J. Carlesimo, it had less to do with the Thunder’s early struggles and more about the fact it was obvious the developmental process was stalling. Durant was playing out of position and not advancing, Westbrook wasn’t even starting. So Presti made a wise decision and canned Carlesimo who was tilted towards nightly results and appointed Brooks who was charged with making these kids better. When coaches get that kind of leeway, that kind of grace, they can play young guys and watch the losses pile up. As long as there’s progress, it’s OK.

The Thunder progressed alright, at speeds only seen in this galaxy by the Millennium Falcon. Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, even Thabo Sefolosha, Jackson, Eric Maynor — they all made significant steps forward. Leaps, really and with them, so did the Thunder. Guys like Cole Aldrich and Byron Mullens didn’t. Is purely coincidental that the ones that went through the program and came out studs on the other side were the ones that, you know, actually played in games?

As the Thunder struggled to find offense without Russell Westbrook in the postseason, calls for Lamb increased. It was obvious the Thunder needed an extra offensive punch, some kind of floor spacer or spark. But playing Lamb then would’ve been a massive desperation move for Brooks and a complete mistake.

Because unlike the Spurs, the Thunder would’ve been trotting a rookie onto the floor in the second round of the playoffs against one of the league’s best defenses only to watch him getting eaten alive. At that point, it was way too late. And it proved the point that Brooks’ short-sighted approach with Fisher was a major gaffe because without Westbrook, the Thunder’s otherwise ridiculously talented roster looked comically thin and inept after Durant, Jackson and Ibaka. Again, Lamb played TWICE in the regular season, both for about four minutes. He wasn’t prepared for anything. Brooks great mistake there wasn’t not playing Lamb in the playoffs; it was not playing him in December.

I get it, though. It’s hard to trust young players. They screw up. They do dumb things. But more than any other coach in the league, Brooks should be understand and forgiving and accommodating to those growing pains. Seeing as, you know, he just took one of the youngest rosters in NBA history to an NBA Finals and all. If anyone should trust youth, it should be Brooks.

Like Henry pointed out with Lionel Hollins oddly trying Jon Leuer in Game 3, or when he dusted off Austin Daye randomly in Game 1 against the Thunder, that stuff doesn’t work. What the Spurs have done, incrementally preparing and developing over the course of a season or really, seasons plural, works.

I really respect and admire the Thunder’s patience. It’s what separates them from a lot of other organizations. There’s no rash rush to change or leap for something risky. Stability and consistency almost always win out in the long run in sports. Knee jerking rarely does. It’s why you’re the fan that sits on your couch and plays on the Trade Machine and they’re the ones actually running the team. Everything is within the plan and calculated. Sometimes that yields frustrating trades and situations, but you have to give it to them that they’re staying on message and task.

Next season is critical though for these young players. It’s fine if they spend some time in Tulsa, if they aren’t playing 30 minutes a night. But what’s the point of stockpiling young talent on the end of your bench if you’re not going to use them? Perry Jones needs to play. Jeremy Lamb needs to play. Reggie Jackson needs to play more. Otherwise, get rid of them. Because what’s the point?

Here is where the Thunder are at a crossroads. What stands before Sam Presti is the decision to be a truly serious contender to just a San Antonio Spurs franchise wanna be. If the toughest decision that we Thunder fans have ever had to live with was letting Harden go, then another tough decision looms on the horizon.

What to do with Kendrick Perkins? Much has been written, said and talked about regarding trading him, amnestying him or just hanging on to him. Kendrick Perkins represents much about what has to be done. If they Thunder truly want to be CHAMPIONS this tough decision of amnestying Perk will have to be done. Below are the reasons why he has to be let go:

1. His salary's effect on the cap is what stands between OKC getting a GREAT player or settling for a degenerating/declining player. By amnestying Perk, the Thunder would FREE UP an average of $9M for the next 2 years. While Perk would still have to be paid, it's a tough pill Clay Bennett would have to swallow. You wanna win, you gotta pay.

2. Perk was highly unutilized in the Houston series. In the Memphis series where his value as a togh defender/screener/emotional leader would have had a chance to shine, he actually shrank even smaller.

3. Had we won that series against Memphis, we would have faced the Spurs, yes without Harden. Perk would been devoured by Duncan and maybe even Splitter what with San Antonio's finesse game and pinpoint offense.

4. The formula to beat the Heat has been written down by the Indiana Pacers. And yes it involves bigs. SCORING bigs. Perk is neither big enough nor scores enough. Heck, he's not even a threat.

In combination with amnestying Perk, I say we let Kevin Martin walk and free up a further $12M (?). That's already a combined $21-ish million.

With these being said, I say we go after David West and find at least two serviceable shooters in JJ Reddick and a stretch 4.

Just set up an account. Long time reader, 1st time poster. Like everyone I have my opinionst. Here's a few of them. All coaches have their strength's and weaknesses and nobody's perfect. We analyze very critically because we are so invested. It's much easier to see weaknesses when we watch things extremely close. I admit I'm on the outside looking in, but from the outside a big concern for me is our apparent lack of a coach that can develop big men, and I'm talking back to the basket, rebounding etc. Perkins has gotten worse over his time here and no one else we've drafted has developed at all and they've had plenty of them. Ibaka's great at what he does, but it's not in any of those areas. The other areas\positions our coaches seem to be able to develop. I don't like the way Brooks uses his rotation either, but as others have said, until we see these guys in extended meaningful game minutes we won't know if it was stubbornness or lack of ability.

“If you don’t provide the environment for people to exercise in, that is going to translate to lower personal health indicators,” Thompson said. And the states with lowest fitness levels have more people with diabetes, with obesity, and a higher percentage who smoke, he said.

Lamb: a BIG reason he didn't play much this year is Martin needed all the reps to gel and make a run. Unfortunately Patrick Beverley.....

I believe Brooks could have played Lamb with a few starters to get him minutes more in the reg season, but don't hold it against him for not doing so. His defense was also a big reason he didn't play more.

According to Mike Morgan...with two days remaining in May this is Oklahoma's wettest May on record. I find that believable. I'd feel better though if this data were coming from Damon Lane. Here at the DCWRS we rely much more heavily on Damon Lane's data than that of Mike Morgan. I bet it rains later this early evening. No Game 7 on TV tonight...I'm heading to the Barons game. LET'S GO BARONS!

Brookie case study: Byron Mullens and Serge Ibaka were both 20-year old rookies in the 09-10 season. Both players were drafted 24th overall.

Mullens played 55 minutes his rookie year.

Ibaka played 1321 minutes his rookie year.

Does the OKC coaching staff have an irrational aversion to playing young players? Of course not. The talented guys who work hard get playing time. The less talented or less hardworking guys who don't fully commit get buried on the bench.

Why didn't Lamb play this year? Because he didn't earn the playing time in practice.

@Podirk On the Locked on Jazz podcast, Locke said that he had lunch with Scott Brooks and was talking about how many had criticized the Jazz's lack of use of their young bigs and opting for Jefferson and Millsap. Locke said that Brooks pointed out that Jefferson and Millsap were in contract years and that cutting their minutes would have had an adverse effect on the team, that in a contract year, it's not even an option to cut their minutes. When you project that to the Martin/Lamb situation, it becomes perfectly clear that Lamb had ZERO chance of getting KMart's minutes. To me, this is a huge indictment on Scott Brooks.

@FF_pickups@Podirk I'm not sure I understand this logic. If a player's in a contract year, and you're trying to showcase them so you can trade their contract, then yes, play them all the minutes you can. But if it's a situation where you would like to keep them, and there are viable options behind them, wouldn't you want to play them slightly less to deflate their numbers and make them more affordable?

I feel like not playing a player in a contract year helps the team while hurting the player, not the other way around.

@DeMolay_Thunder@DXL Both factors are probably at play. Brooks played rookies less and less as we got more competitive. Mullens was/is awful and rarely ever didn't look completely lost on the court. The only big in front of Ibaka was Green, who really wasn't a big anyway. Mullens didn't have much to speak of in front of him either, but like I said, he was pure butt. Lamb and PJ3 were like 3rd/ 4th on the depth chart at their position.

I'm sure the coaches don't just stick the rookies in a corner during practice and watch everybody else practice but them, so there's obviously going to be some merit involved in their playing time. I do think that the coaches are more hesitant to play them over the proven players though, now that a) we actually have proven players and b) we are trying every year now to finish with home court for the playoffs and win an NBA championship.

@DeMolay_Thunder@DXL From what I understand Lamb wouldn't have been part of the rotation, even in Houston, with a much weaker roster than OKC. He couldn't beat out Delfino or Toney Douglas for playing time.

Lamb as a 20 year old rookie with a slight frame and questionable defensive habits just wasn't ready for the NBA, even on a non-contending team.

@Jooseppi@DeMolay_Thunder If we could package the 29 and the #2 for the second round to get up to maybe 23-24 to get him, I think that would be a pretty good move myself. Get a wing player with 12 then snag Olynyk with the later pick.

Hey, you're the one with an agenda here...playing amateur psychologist by pretending to know how Brooks thinks (see above): "I think the Brooks thinks that the players will quit on the team and that other players who aren't in contract years will become disillusioned with the way the players are being treated. I agree that that isn't going to happen. I think that Brooks plays amateur psychologist far too often."

I laughed out loud at the irony of you griping at Brooks for doing the exact thing you're doing to him. lol Regardless, the Jazz' situation with their contract guys was nothing like the Thunder's. At no point did Lamb even remotely look like he could out-play Kmart.

@TaoMaas No, that's not what Locke was saying. He said that the argument was that Kanter and Favors were often outplaying Jefferson and Millsap and yet weren't getting minutes. Brooks said it didn't matter who was playing better in the short run because of Jefferson and Millsap's contract year. In the long run, it would be detrimental to the team to play Kanter and Favors over Millsap and Jefferson, regardless of who was playing better.

btw, I totally disagree with Brooks sentiment but it sheds light on the Lamb/Martin situation. I know Taomaas is going to believe whatever he wants to believe but that doesn't change the facts.

I don't think it has anything to do with being afraid that a player will pitch a fit because SOMEBODY has to sit, right? Sounds like it has to do with getting the best value for the team. If this is likely your last year to use a player...and he's better than the player behind him...you play him. To sit Martin, Jefferson, or Milsap would be throwing money away.

@FF_pickups@TheresABabyFaceUnderMyBeard While possible, it also could have been for the exact reason I stated (probably giving far too much credit here). Didn't play Brewer, intend to keep him cheap, played KMart a ton, intended to flip in sign and trade.

But yeah, much more likely he's looking at it from a keep everybody happy perspective since that seems to be his MO

I totally agree with you. I think the Brooks thinks that the players will quit on the team and that other players who aren't in contract years will become disillusioned with the way the players are being treated. I agree that that isn't going to happen. I think that Brooks plays amateur psychologist far too often.

It's hard for me to say because I don't watch other teams as closely. But watching the playoffs, he's clearly way below average for playoff coaches. Listening to people who's opinion's I respect like Zach Lowe and Haralobob, he gets absolutely ripped and shredded. Zach Lowe said that our offensive system was one of the worst in the NBA and that the only reason it works is because of the individual brilliance of KD and Westbrook.

@DXL@DeMolay_Thunder I think immediately no, he wouldn't have cracked the rotation. But Houston was high on him, and I think he would have gotten regular playing time around halfway through the season.

@DeMolay_Thunder@TheresABabyFaceUnderMyBeard@Jooseppi He seems to be kind of in the staying-put-while-everybody-else-climbs-past bunch. The only place I've seen Olynyk not in the lottery is nbadraft.net, which I'm convinced randomly generates their draft predictions. Dieng though, could be sliding a little by virtue of others climbing though